User talk:Apokryltaros

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

/User talk:Apokryltaros Archive 1 /User talk:Apokryltaros Archive 2

Wakaleo vanderleuri[edit]

I have merged Wakaleo vanderleueri with Wakaleo vanderleuri due to the former being a misspelling of the latter. As it was my first ever merge, I would like your help in verifying that the merge went correctly and any tags were put in their appropriate places as the help page on merges isn't to clear on which talk page to add the old merge full template to. Lavalizard101 (talk) 12:24, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Everything appears to be shipshape: congratulations on a mission accomplished.--Mr Fink (talk) 15:06, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
I just made a few copy-edits to this article. Is there a reason why "wombats" is in the plural and "the koala" is in the singular? If not, which would be better, "the wombat and the koala" or "wombats and koalas"?  – Corinne (talk) 23:41, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
"Wombats" there is plural to imply how there is more than one extant species of wombat, and "the koala" is singular to imply how there is only one extant species of koala--Mr Fink (talk) 01:09, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
(Just saw this.) What do you think of adding "the" before "wombats" so that it reads:
  • ...; its closest living relatives are the wombats and the koala?
 – Corinne (talk) 23:39, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Montane ecosystems[edit]

Hello, Apokryltaros – I was just looking at the latest edit to Montane ecosystems, and I see it was the addition of an image, a photo of a road, presumably at high altitude, with some trees on either side of the road, in the mountains of Iran. I was wondering if you thought this image was appropriate for the article. If so, the caption needs to be re-written. I assume it is a forest of some kind, not a jungle. What do you think?  – Corinne (talk) 23:47, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

It's oak scrub, and I put it in with the Mediterranean section.--Mr Fink (talk) 01:22, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
(Just saw this.) O.K. Good. Thanks.  – Corinne (talk) 23:40, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

American black bear[edit]

Hello, Apokryltaros – I'm in the middle of reading American black bear, and I wanted to ask you about two things:

1) The last sentence of the first paragraph in the section American black bear#Taxonomy and evolution reads:

  • Reportedly, the sun bear is also a relatively recent split from this lineage.

I wanted to ask what you thought of the adverb "reportedly" at the beginning of the sentence. To me, it suggests that some scholars have claimed this, but it is likely untrue. I think it's a little ambiguous. If the situation is that there is some evidence to show this, but it is not conclusive, or is not yet widely accepted among scholars, perhaps it would be good if that could be said. What do you think?

2) The first two sentences of the last paragraph in American black bear#Taxonomy and evolution read:

  • The American black bear lived during the same period as short-faced bears (Arctodus simus and A. pristinus) and the Florida spectacled bear (Tremarctos floridanus). These Tremarctine bears evolved from bears that had emigrated from Asia to North America 7–8 ma.

I know Tremarctos floridanus is linked, but I wonder if a link could be added at "Tremarctine". I had never seen that word before and I wonder what it refers to.  – Corinne (talk) 21:49, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

I swapped out "reportedly" for "According to recent studies," and I linked "Tremarctinae" for "Tremarctine"--Mr Fink (talk) 23:53, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Pkym1[edit]

You left an edit summary about him being a vandal if I read correctly. How can you tell he is a vandal? I kinda failed to see what vandalism he has done. If he is, shouldn't he be reported at Wikipedia intervention against vandalism? As a side note, he has no user or talkpage.198.24.31.108 (talk) 23:55, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Among other things, I can tell s/he/it is a vandal because Pkym1 went out of its way to insert crude hoax information in Aojia in order to deliberately direct readers to its hoax page, "Yiran," among other things. If one can not describe such a deliberately unconstructive editor as a "vandal," then, what would you suggest as a more apt descriptor? Furthermore, considering as how Pkym1's last edit was from 2014, I clearly think it would be a blatant fool's errand to submit what would be a blatant "stale report" to Wikipedia Intervention Against Vandalism, especially since Pkym1 does not appear to be a sleeper account of a sockpuppet.--Mr Fink (talk) 00:37, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Entelodon-related[edit]

I added the information to the Entelodon page because someone linked it as "Killer Warthog" on the Dino-Riders page. For all I know, that person though the Entelodon was the closest match that they can use for that name. Did I leave anything out? --Rtkat3 (talk) 15:55, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Is there a reliable source to confirm this identification?--Mr Fink (talk) 18:42, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Hide Virus[edit]

Is your PC all right? Can you hide the edit on Evolution of cetaceans so no one, maybe a child, looking in the page history goes to the malware site? 2600:1:F187:7808:EDC1:6892:78BB:761F (talk) 23:22, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

I would if I was an administrator, which I am not.--Mr Fink (talk) 00:14, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Helianthus[edit]

Hello, Mr Fink – Can you take a look at this edit to Helianthus? The added sentence is neither sourced nor in what I would call the right place in the article. I suppose an argument could be made that "sunflowers in art" would be a good section to have, but the material would have to be sourced, and I doubt this editor is interested in finding and adding sources. I noticed that you had left a warning on this editor's talk page last fall. Do you feel like adding another?  – Corinne (talk) 21:03, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

It's a non sequitor that really, truly, only applies to Helianthus anuus, so I removed it.--Mr Fink (talk) 21:17, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
O.K. Thanks!  – Corinne (talk) 02:47, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Extended evolutionary synthesis[edit]

Hello, Mr. Fink – I have Extended evolutionary synthesis on my watchlist even though the subject matter is a bit above my ability to fully comprehend all the ideas. I was reading through the article and I came across a few places that I thought were either unclear or didn't read smoothly. I made a few small changes in wording; hope you approve of those. I wanted to ask you about a few things.

1) The first sentence of the article is the following:

The extended evolutionary synthesis is a set of extensions of the earlier modern synthesis of evolutionary biology that took place between 1918 and 1942.

To someone in the field, this probably makes perfect sense, but to me, in order for something to "take place", it has to unequivocally be an event. I don't see any event here. I suppose it is implied by the noun "synthesis" or the noun "extensions", but to help the average Wikipedia reader, I wonder if this could be clarified somewhat. I could suggest a small change: adding "made" after "a set of extensions" and changing "of" to "to":

  • The extended evolutionary synthesis is a set of extensions made to of the earlier modern synthesis of evolutionary biology that took place between 1918 and 1942.

I don't know if this makes sense, or is accurate. You might suggest something different.

But again, we still have "the...synthesis...that took place". In this wording, the "synthesis" seems to have been an event, which is hard for me to grasp, especially since it took place over a period of twenty-four years. Perhaps "took place" could be changed to something else such as "was accomplished" or "carried out"?

response: "made to" sounds fine to me.
O.K., but what about my other question? Do you want to leave it as "took place" or substitute another verb such as "was accomplished" or "carried out", or something else? How about this? –
  • an earlier modern synthesis of evolutionary biology that was developed between 1918 and 1914.
(I changed "the" to "an". Unless it's absolutely necessary, it is best not to use "the" until the item has been introduced; also, who knows, it may have been the first of several. What do you think of "was developed"?  – Corinne (talk) 17:29, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
response: This sounds much better, actually.

2) In the section Extended evolutionary synthesis#The preceding "modern synthesis" is the following sentence:

The 19th-century ideas of natural selection by Darwin and Mendelian genetics were united by researchers who included Ronald Fisher, one of the three founders of population genetics, and J. B. S. Haldane and Sewall Wright, between 1918 and 1932.

I think something is not quite right with the wording of the first part of the sentence. There are two 19th-century ideas. One is "natural selection by Darwin" and the other is "Mendelian genetics". I think the phrases should, if possible, be made more parallel. In other words, change the first phrase to "Darwin's natural selection" or "Darwinian natural selection" to parallel "Mendelian genetics", or change "Mendelian genetics" so it becomes parallel to "natural selection by Darwin", which I think is more difficult to do. What do you think?

response: Since we have the adjective "Mendelian," style-sense would dictate the use of "Darwinian."

3) The first sentence in the section Extended evolutionary synthesis#Early history is the following:

During the 1950s, the English biologist C. H. Waddington called for an extended synthesis based from his research on epigenetics and genetic assimilation.

I wondered whether "based from" made sense to you. The more usual phrase is "based on". "Based from" would be more likely to be used in something like logistics. Also, the phrase "during the 1950s" suggests to me either that no one knows at what point in the 1950s Waddington called for an extended synthesis or that he called for an extended synthesis several times during the 1950s. Either way, I think it is vague. What do you think of changing "During the 1950s" to "In the 1950s"?

response: As far as I know, "based on" versus "based from" is a matter of style, though, I must agree that it would seem more reasonable to use the more frequently used "based on." As for "during" versus "in," I'd recommend keeping it as "during" unless until we can pinpoint a more specific timerange, but that's my own taste.

4) My next question is one of formatting. I noticed that in the section Extended evolutionary synthesis#Recent history, the items in the list are:

(a) bulleted, and
(b) begin with a capital letter and end with a period/full stop, and

in the section Extended evolutionary synthesis#Predictions, the items in the list are:

(a) numbered, and
(b) begin with a lower-case letter and end with no punctuation.

(a) Do you think the formatting in these two lists should be match, for consistency? Is there any strong reason for using different formatting? (By the way, the MoS says that lists are deprecated, but assuming we are leaving them as lists...)

(b) If we decide to make the formatting of the two lists consistent, which style do you prefer? My preference is for starting each item with a lower-case letter, ending with a semi-colon, and ending the final item with a period. I don't know which is better, numbering or bullets. I think I prefer bullets. Is there any reason why the items need to be numbered?

response: If we go with a bulleted list, I'd either go with a numbered list, or neither numbered nor lettered.
By "a bulleted list", I meant a list with a bullet at the beginning of each item. This is a bulleted list:
  • item one here;
  • item two here;
  • item three here; and
  • item four here.
(Can be punctuated as this one is, or can be written with no final punctuation.)
See MOS:LISTBULLET, particularly the fourth bulleted item: "Use numbers rather than bullets only if..." (See additional comments added above.)  – Corinne (talk) 17:20, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
response: I guess, then, go with a numbered list.

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────You must have been in a hurry; you didn't read far enough. I'll copy the section from MOS:LISTBULLET:

* Use numbers rather than bullets only if:

  • A need to refer to the elements by number may arise;
  • The sequence of the items is critical; or
  • The numbering has some independent meaning, for example in a listing of musical tracks.

Do any of these apply?  – Corinne (talk) 00:32, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

reply: As far as I know, none apply.
O.K. Thanks. Then I think we should use bullets.  – Corinne (talk) 01:04, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

5) I don't see anywhere in the article an explanation of what a "synthesis" is (in this context). I think it would help readers if one sentence were added somewhere that explained what a synthesis is.

response: Agreed.
Great! It's got to be you who writes this sentence. I could write my own understanding of it, but it might not be quite right for this context.  – Corinne (talk) 17:22, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Well, that's all. Thanks for reading.  – Corinne (talk) 03:04, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

@Corinne: That was a marathon comment! Thank you!--Mr Fink (talk) 04:09, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
@Corinne:So far, so good.--Mr Fink (talk) 20:52, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
I'll make the changes tomorrow. It's late, and I'm tired.  – Corinne (talk) 03:06, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
  • salute* (falls over)--Mr Fink (talk) 04:06, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Megatheria[edit]

Just wondered if you had ever seen a picture of a huge statue of a Megatheria. See Altiplano Cundiboyacense.  – Corinne (talk) 01:29, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Nice.--Mr Fink (talk) 02:25, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Hoplophoneus and Paleobiology Database[edit]

(diff: [1]) Hello. Are you aware where age ranges on the Paleobiology Database come from? Stas (talk) 21:36, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

And how does that justify replacing the age range with an estimate that would mislead a reader to assume the genus was restricted to 30 million years ago?--Mr Fink (talk) 21:48, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
"Age ranges" on Paleobiology Database / Fossilworks refer to divisions of geologic time scale where fossils of the taxon were found (and usually according to obsolete versions of the chronostratigraphic chart). "Misleading of the reader" is presenting these ranges as the time of taxon existence. Stas (talk) 22:03, 6 September 2017 (UTC)